ORAL JUDGMENT C. L. PANGARKAR, J. :- All the three accused were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli for having committed offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for six months. All the appellants hereinafter shall be referred to as accused. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under- One Kausalyabai was living at village Kadoli with her son Lomesh. She has another son by name Janardhan, who is accused No. 3 and who lives separately. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were residing just infront of the house of the deceased Kausalyabai. Accused No. 2 Shalini was the member of Bachat Gat. Deceased Kausalyabai was also member of the Bachat Gat. The relations between accused No.3 Janardhan, son ofthe deceased, and Kausalyabai were strained on account of the fact that deceased Kausalyabai used to provide meals to Indarsing. This was not liked by accused No.3 Janardhan. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were under the impression that Pramilabai, accused No.2, was removed from the membership of Bachat Gat due to complaint made by deceased Kausalyabai. 3. It is alleged that a few hours prior to the incident accused No. 3 Janardhan had come to the place where a meeting of the Bachat Gat was going on. Accused No.3 assaulted his mother Kausalyabai there. The people tried to intervene and tried to pursue the accused No.3 not to assault his mother. 4. It is further alleged that at about 9.30 p.m., accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of deceased Kausalyabai and accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Kausalyabai was rushed to the Rural Hospital at Kadoli and from there she was removed to the Rural Hospitalat Kurkheda. Since her condition became serious, she was removed to the General Hospital at Gadchiroli where she died on 16th of March, 2001. She had suffered 100% burns. Police made an arrangement to record the dying declaration of Kausalyabai. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of deceased at Kurkheda. The dying declarations were also recorded at Gadchiroli by the Executive Magistrate and the Police Officers. She had suffered 100% burns. Police made an arrangement to record the dying declaration of Kausalyabai. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of deceased at Kurkheda. The dying declarations were also recorded at Gadchiroli by the Executive Magistrate and the Police Officers. The Police had drawn the panchanama of the scene of occurrence and had seized a Plastic Can and other things from the place of the incident. Police had also seized the clothes on the person of the accused. They were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge framed the charge to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and self immolation. The learned Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, found all the accused guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them. It is against this conviction that this appeal has been preferred. 6. We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. The prosecution has examined as many as fourteen witnesses and the appellants/accused also have examined two defence witnesses. The case of the prosecution rests upon the dying declarations only, since there is no eye witness to the incident. There are four written dying declarations (Exh.37, Exh.38, Exh.53 and Exh.54). One oral dying declaration is made to PW 6 Falgun. The two defence witnesses also claimed that deceased told them that she had set herself on fire. 8. Before we proceed to discuss the evidence, it would be worthwhile to look into the background of the incident. It is clear from the evidence that accused No. 3- Janardhan is the son of deceased and accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, live just in front of the house of deceased. It is thus clear that all accused are well-known to the deceased and there could be no doubt about the identity of accused. The evidence of PW s 1, 2 and 3 would show that a few hours prior to the incident accused No.3 Janardhan had beaten his mother Kausalyabai, the deceased. It is thus clear that all accused are well-known to the deceased and there could be no doubt about the identity of accused. The evidence of PW s 1, 2 and 3 would show that a few hours prior to the incident accused No.3 Janardhan had beaten his mother Kausalyabai, the deceased. The evidence of PW 2 Anusayabai and PW 3 Sundarabai would show that a few hours before the incident in question accused Nos. 1 and 2 both abused Kausalyabai. It has come in the cross-examination of PW 2 Anusayabai that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were under impression that due to the deceased, accused No.2 was removed from the membership of Bachat Gat and over that reason they had quarrelled with her. PW 3 Sundarabai has stated about the frequent quarrels between accused No. 3 and the deceased. The deceased in her dying declaration (Exh.53) had stated that since she prepared food for Indarsing, accused No.3 felt offended and for that reason he had beaten her. This evidence clearly goes to show that all accused were, in fact, offended and their relations with the deceased were strained. The deceased was abused by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and beaten by accused No.3 just a few hours prior to the incident. It is in this background that the dying declarations have to be appreciated. 9. As observed earlier, there is no eye witness. The law is well established that if there are more than one dying declarations, they should be consistent .and they must be free from infirmities. It must be established that the deceased had an opportunity to make dying declaration, she had an opportunity to see the assailants, her mental and physical condition was sound and statement is not the result of tutoring or prompting. 10. In a case reported in 2004(10) SCC 769 , Nallam Veera Stayanandam and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., it is held that each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merits as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of the contents of the other. Thus, even if one of the several dying declarations is held to be not reliable that does not automatically render the other dying declarations unreliable and each has to be independently judged. 11. With this, we proceed to look into the dying declarations. Thus, even if one of the several dying declarations is held to be not reliable that does not automatically render the other dying declarations unreliable and each has to be independently judged. 11. With this, we proceed to look into the dying declarations. PW 6 Falgun has stated that he knows all accused as well as deceased. He states that on the day of the incident he had gone to see a movie at the Video Parlour where Anusayabai (PW 2) had come to take her son away. He states that at that time Anusayabai told him that Kausalyabai has been set to fire by accused No. 3 Janardhan. It is in his evidence further that he informed Premdeo, the brother of the deceased, and went to the hospital where he found Kausalyabai sitting near the door of the hospital. It is also in his evidence further that on questioning Kausalyabai told him that accused persons poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. He further has deposed that they had then taken her to the Rural Hospital at Kurkheda. It is clear that this dying declaration was made by the deceased immediately after the incident i.e. within an hour. If the cross-examination of this witness is seen, one will find that there is only a suggestion that Kausalyabai did not tell him so. This suggestion has been denied. It is in fact elicited in cross-examination that the statements of Kausalyabai were recorded in hospital. There is, therefore, virtually no challenge to what has been stated by PW 6 Falgun. We have already seen that accused No.1 and 2 are immediate neighbours of the deceased and accused No.3 is her son. There could, therefore, be no question of any mistaken identity. It is also not elicited from this witness that there was anybody around her, who could prompt her or tutor her. We find that this dying declaration does not suffer from any kind of infirmity and was, in fact, voluntary. 12. The next dying declaration is recorded by the Executive Magistrate. It is Exh.37. It is recorded on printed format in Marathi. On the same format there is requisition of Medical Officer at the top and below that requisition the actual dying declaration is recorded. 12. The next dying declaration is recorded by the Executive Magistrate. It is Exh.37. It is recorded on printed format in Marathi. On the same format there is requisition of Medical Officer at the top and below that requisition the actual dying declaration is recorded. At the top of the dying declaration i.e. immediately below the requisition, the Medical Officer has put his signature and at the end of the dying declaration also the Medical Officer has put his signature. On the top, the Medical Officer was requested to give an opinion as to the ability of the patient to give statement and the Medial Officer has put his signature below it. Executive Magistrate (PW 12) Yadao has deposed that he had gone to the hospital to record the dying declaration of Kausalyabai and met the Medical Officer. He states that he asked the Medical Officer if the patient was in fit condition and the Medical Officer said that she was in fit condition. He further states that he himself asked Kausalyabai her name, residence and occupation and she answered the questions properly. It is thus obvious that not only the Medical Officer had stated that the patient was in a fit condition but even the Executive Magistrate himself by putting such questions to Kausalyabai before recording dying declaration had verified as to whether she was well oriented or not and thereafter only he recorded the statements. He had stated that Kausalyabai told him that accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught her and accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire with a lamp. He had stated that he recorded statement as told by her and obtained her thumb impression. This was on 14-32001 at 4.45 a.m. Medical Officer PW 7 Dr. Purushottam corroborates the version of PW 12 Yadao. PW 7 Purushottam positively says that she was in a fit condition. He denied the suggestion that she was sinking. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of Dr. Purushottam that the patient was not in a fit condition. This dying declaration was assailed on three grounds. Firstly, that when deceased had suffered 100% burns, her thumb impression could not be with clear ridges. He denied the suggestion that she was sinking. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of Dr. Purushottam that the patient was not in a fit condition. This dying declaration was assailed on three grounds. Firstly, that when deceased had suffered 100% burns, her thumb impression could not be with clear ridges. Secondly, that there is some scoring on dying declaration and thirdly, on the ground that the Medical Officer did not make a specific endorsement on dying declaration about the mental condition but merely signed it at two places. As far as first ground is concerned, it may be noted that it is in cross-examination of PW 7 Dr. Purushottam that ridges are clear because the palm portion of the deceased was not burnt. This having been elicited in cross-examination, it cannot lie in the mouth of accused to say that ridges could not be clear and therefore, there could be a doubt about the veracity of the statement made by the deceased. A ruling reported in 1998 Cr.L.J. 2061 (State of Punjab, vs. Gian Kaur and another) was placed before us. The facts of this case are a somewhat different. In the reported case, the Medical Officer had given a positive evidence that both thumbs of the deceased were burnt, and in spite of that, the dying declaration had thumb impression with clear ridges. It is in the background of the fact that in that case both the thumbs were clearly burnt and the ridges were clear, Their Lordships found that it was a doubtful circumstance. In the case in hand, we have a clear evidence of the Medical Officer that palm of deceased Kausalyabai was not burnt and therefore, ridges of the thumb impression were clear. 13. In dying declaration (Exh.37), a few words appear to have been scored out. Those words are "and his wife Shalini Kashinath Sahare" appear to have been scored out. These words were, in fact, repetition and therefore, they may have been scored. If the dying declaration is read as a whole, even if these scored words are read or not read, would not make any difference and that would not change the meaning or the position. This is because, at two places, the deceased had positively said that accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught her and accused No.1 set her on fire. 14. This is because, at two places, the deceased had positively said that accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught her and accused No.1 set her on fire. 14. Coming to the third ground that Medical Officer did not make endorsement in so many words about the deceased being in a fit condition, we find that absence of such endorsement in specific words is of no significance. The reasons are - the Medical Officer has stated on oath that she was in fit condition and secondly, the executive Magistrate (PW 12) has himself tried to find out whether the patient was well oriented or not and he has positively stated that the patient had given him correct answers to the question put by him. Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, contended that absence of such endorsement renders the dying declarations invalid and he relied upon a decision of this court reported in 2001 (2) Crimes 596 (Shri Guru M. Gawade vs. The State) - "9. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the Advocates and in our opinion, not recording the statement of the victim in the language of the victim or not recording the statement of the victim in questions and answers form, will not materially affect the prosecution case, but non-examination of the victim by the Doctor before recording of the dying declaration and absence of a certificate by the Doctor that the patient was fit to give statement, is an illegality that goes to the root of the matter and which cannot be condoned as procedural lapse and, therefore, the dying declaration is liable to be rejected. The evidence of Doctor, on oath that he was present; that he examined the patient before recording the dying declaration or that he examined the victim at the beginning and she found to be fit, is of no consequence, because the dying declaration does not support the evidence. What is required by law is that the dying declaration itself should contain the certificate of the Doctor regarding fitness of the victim before recording of the statement starts and also at the time of concluding the said dying declaration. What is not there in the certificate cannot be permitted to be proved by oral evidence of the Doctor. On this ground alone, the dying declaration is liable to be rejected." 15. What is not there in the certificate cannot be permitted to be proved by oral evidence of the Doctor. On this ground alone, the dying declaration is liable to be rejected." 15. This ruling is no more a good law. In view of the rulings of the Apex Court in 2003(6) SCC 443 (P. V. Radhakrishna vs. State of Karnataka), 2002 (8) SCC 83 and 2005(9) SCC 113 (Muthu Kutty and another vs. The State). In all these rulings, it has been held that simply because there is no endorsement of the Medical Officer that does not render the dying declaration invalid. 16. Another dying declaration (Exh.38) was recorded by PW 13- H. C. Sudhakar. He deposed that he had gone to the hospital on 14th of March, 2001 to record dying declaration and met the Medical Officer Dr. Madavi. He states that Dr. Madavi told him that Kausalyabai was in fit condition to give statement. He also states that Kausalyabai told him that accused No.1 and 2 quarrelled with her and then accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught her and accused No.1 poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire with a lamp. There is no cross-examination to the witness as to the condition of the patient and it is not even suggested that anybody had tutored her or prompted her. Again on this dying declaration too, the Medical Officer has put the endorsement to the effect that the statement was recorded in his presence. Dr. Madavi (PW 7) has again stated that in his presence the statement was recorded and he made an endorsement on Exh.38. We find no reason to doubt the veracity of the Medical Officer. Although the Medical Officer's evidence is to be examined like that of any other witness, it must be, in fact, shown by the accused that the Medical Officer has, in fact, any grudge against any of the accused persons or he is interested in any other person connected with the incident. That having not been suggested to the Medical Officer, we find that his evidence has to be accepted as true. 17. On 13-3-2001 i.e. on the day of the incident and just three hours after the incident, the dying declaration (Exh 54) was recorded by Executive Magistrate Jagdish Dewalkar (PW 11). That having not been suggested to the Medical Officer, we find that his evidence has to be accepted as true. 17. On 13-3-2001 i.e. on the day of the incident and just three hours after the incident, the dying declaration (Exh 54) was recorded by Executive Magistrate Jagdish Dewalkar (PW 11). He states that he had gone on the requisition (Exh.18) to the hospital to record the dying declaration of Kausalyabai. He also states that Medical Officer had certified that the patient was in a fit condition to give the statement and he recorded the dying declaration (Exh.54). He also stated that Kausalyabai told him that accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught her and accused No. 1 poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He states that he readover the statement to her and later she put her signature on the dying declaration. The dying declaration bears signature of deceased. The cross-examination of this witness would reveal that it is not even suggested that· the signature on the dying declaration is not that of the deceased. On the other hand, details as to how signature was obtained are elicited. Since the dying declaration bears signature of the deceased, it has to be said that she was mentally and physically fit and it certainly advances the case of the prosecution and corroborates the version of the Medical Officer as well as the Executive Magistrate. 18. Exh.53 yet another dying declaration, also recorded around the same time by Police Officer. This dying declaration also bears signature of the deceased and the Medical Officer. On Exh.19- the requisition, the Medical Officer made an endorsement that the patient was in a fit condition to give the statement. PW 10 Dr. Rajani has proved this endorsement and has positively stated that the patient was in fit condition. Again, since the dying declaration is signed by the deceased and the Medical Officer supports by saying that the patient was in fit condition, we are inclined to hold that the deceased was in fit condition to give a statement. 19. Both, Medical Officer and the Executive Magistrate, have positively stated that the patient was in fit condition. It may be observed that on behalf of accused it is not even suggested to any witness that the deceased was tutored or promoted by anybody. 19. Both, Medical Officer and the Executive Magistrate, have positively stated that the patient was in fit condition. It may be observed that on behalf of accused it is not even suggested to any witness that the deceased was tutored or promoted by anybody. It is not shown that anybody having grudge against the accused was by her side any time while her statement was being recorded or during the time she was in the hospital. In the absence of it, it has to be said that the dying declarations which were made by the deceased were voluntary. It was contended that deceased had suffered 100% bums and therefore could not be in a position to give so many statements. The Post-mortem Note Exh.44 does show that the deceased had suffered 100% bums but then, it must be seen that the incident had taken place at 9.30 p.m. on 13th of March, 2001 and she died on 16th of March, 2001 at 3.25 a.m. She was thus alive for three days in spite of her sustaining 100% bums. All dying declarations were recorded on the night of 13th itself. The date changes at 12.00 in the mid-night and therefore, the date may be 14th, but the fact is that they were recorded in the night of 13th. Thus, even thereafter the deceased had survived for a period of two days. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused referred to the ruling reported in AIR 2002 SC 2996 (Ramilaben Khristi VS. Suleman Khristi Parmar), where the deceased died within 7 to 8 hours of sustaining second degree bum and four dying declarations, which were verbose, were recorded and they were inconsistent. The facts of the case are totally different. Here the deceased had survived for three days after sustaining bums and none of her dying declarations are verbose except with regard to match stick, there is no inconsistency. This ruling has, therefore, no bearing on the case in hand. Mr. R. M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, has cited another ruling reported in AIR 2003 SC 265 (Chacko vs. State of Kerala). In the reported case, the deceased was 70 years' old and had suffered 80% bums and died within 8 to 9 hours. This ruling has, therefore, no bearing on the case in hand. Mr. R. M. Daga, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, has cited another ruling reported in AIR 2003 SC 265 (Chacko vs. State of Kerala). In the reported case, the deceased was 70 years' old and had suffered 80% bums and died within 8 to 9 hours. It was also found in that case that, even though the doctor was available neither signature nor attestation was obtained and the contents of the documents were arranged to accommodate the place for the thumb impression. Their Lordships found that these circumstances render the dying declaration to be untrustworthy. In our case, the deceased was only 35 years' old. She survived for more than three days. The endorsements of the Medical Officer have been obtained. The dying declarations are not verbose. They are quite brief and the contents have not been arranged so as to accommodate the thumb impression. On the other hand, on two dying declarations the signatures of the deceased have been obtained at the end of the dying declaration. This ruling, therefore, has no bearing on the case in hand. 20. Mrs. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, invited our attention to the fact that the accused have admitted the seizure memo Exhs.24, 25 and 26 under which their clothes were seized by the police. In these seizure memo, it is clearly mentioned that they were smelling of Kerosene. These clothes belonging to the accused were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The report (Exh 12) of the Chemical Analyser is placed on record. It shows that residues of kerosene were detected on all the clothes, which were seized from the accused. This fact that Kerosene was found on the clothes, which were on the person of the accused, certainly corroborates by the version of the deceased in dying declaration that kerosene was poured on the person by the accused and she was set on fire else there is no reason of kerosene being found on clothes. This is a very material circumstance and it certainly advances the case of the prosecution. 21. The discrepancy about the match stick and lamp is very insignificant in the teeth of overwhelming evidence. 22. The defence have examined two witnesses i.e. DW 1 Premdeo and DW 2- Dr. Sanjay. DW 1 Premdeo is brother of deceased. This is a very material circumstance and it certainly advances the case of the prosecution. 21. The discrepancy about the match stick and lamp is very insignificant in the teeth of overwhelming evidence. 22. The defence have examined two witnesses i.e. DW 1 Premdeo and DW 2- Dr. Sanjay. DW 1 Premdeo is brother of deceased. He has stated that he had gone with Falgun (PW 6) to hospital where he saw deceased sitting and when asked she told that she set herself to fire. The evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence because PW 6 Falgun, an independent witness, who was with him tells otherwise. This witness is real maternal uncle of accused No.3 and is therefore interested. Further this witness has signed as pancha on the dying declaration (Exh.37) and admits in cross-examination that he signed dying declaration (Exh.37) because it was recorded in his presence and says that he never signs any incorrect document. We have seen that Exh.37 inculpates all accused. Further he admits that he did not tell police that deceased had set fire to herself and accused were innocent. This conduct also renders his evidence untrustworthy. Dr. Sanjay's (DW 2) evidence about Kausalyabai's self immolation also does not inspire confidence. He admits in cross-examination that police came to Kurkheda hospital in his presence. He states that he did not tell police that Kausalyabai had set fire to herself. He had an opportunity to tell yet he did not avail it, which is a conduct far from natural. He admits that even after arrest of accused he did not tell police what Kausalyabai told him. This omission on part of the witness leaves us with no alternative but to reject his testimony. Hence, there is no evidence exculpating the accused at all. 23. We find that the relations between the accused persons and the deceased were strained. Accused, therefore, have had a motive to do away with the deceased. The deceased had made oral as well as written dying declarations. All of them are certainly free from any kind of infirmity. The dying declarations certainly go to show that the accused are perpetrators of the crime. The accused must, therefore, be held to be the authors of the injuries sustained by the deceased due to which she died. The deceased had made oral as well as written dying declarations. All of them are certainly free from any kind of infirmity. The dying declarations certainly go to show that the accused are perpetrators of the crime. The accused must, therefore, be held to be the authors of the injuries sustained by the deceased due to which she died. We, therefore, find that the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any error in convicting the accused on the basis of the dying declarations. We find no merit in the appeal and, therefore, dismiss the same. Accused No.2 - Sau. Shalini w/o Kashinath Sahare to surrender to her bail. Appeal dismissed.