JUDGMENT 1. - Raseeda @ Raasida and Rajeeda, the appellants herein, were found guilty under section 302/34 IPC for having committed murder of Akhtari Begum. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine by the learned trial Judge. Challenge in the instant appeal is the said judgment of learned trial Judge. 2. The conviction of appellants is primarily based on the dying declaration of Akhtari Begum. In cases of homicide, statements made by a person, since deceased are admissible to prove the case and circumstances of the man's death. Such statements are called 'dying declaration'. The admittedly of "dying declaration" rests on the principle that a sense of impending death produces in a man's mind the same feeling as that of a conscientious and virtuous man under oath-'NEMO MORITURUS PRAESUMUNTUR MENTIRI". The general principle on which this species of evidence is admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity, when every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth; a situation so solemn and so awful is considered by the law creating on obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of justice. 3. It is the prosecution case that informant Abdul Hafeej on January 1, 1996 submitted a written report at Police Station Jawahar Nagar Jaipur stating therein that his sister Akhtari Begum was married to Abdul Jabbar 16 years back at Delhi. She suddenly eloped with one Lal Khan along with her children and despite his best efforts he was not able to find out her whereabouts. It was on December 29, 1995 that one Saleem telephonically informed him that Akhtari Begum had been burnt alive and was admitted to the Hospital at Jaipur. Informant than reached to Jaipur and found Akhtari Begum badly burnt. On that report a case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of Akhtari Begum got recorded by Magistrate, necessary memos were drawn and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under sections 302 and 34 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 14 witnesses. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under sections 302 and 34 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 14 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC. the appellants claimed innocence. Three witness in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 4. We have heard the submissions canvassed before us on behalf of the appellants and the State. 5. At the outset we deem it necessary to narrate the principles governing dying declaration, laid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments. They are as under : (i) The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination ( K. Ramchandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618 ). (ii) Where a dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted 5 upon without corroborative evidence. ( Rashid Beg v. State of M.P., (1974) 4 SCC 264 ). (iii) A dying declaration which suffer from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. ( Ram Manorath v. State, (1981) 2 SCC 654 ). 6. It is in view of the above parameters that we have to adjudge the acceptability of the alleged dying declaration. Sh. Phool Chand Jhajhadia, Judicial Magistrate (Pw.8) in his deposition stated that he recorded the statement of Akhtari Begum after obtaining the certificate from the doctor about her fitness for the statement and he recorded the same in question-answer form. Akhtari Begum stated that while Raseeda caught 5 hold of her hands, Rajida poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Testimony of Sh. Jhajhadia could not be shattered in the cross examination. 7. At this juncture we deem it appropriate to refer Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 which provides as under : "6.22 Dying declaration.-(1) A dying declaration shall, whenever possible, be recorded by a Magistrate. (2) The person making the declaration shall, if possible, be examined by a medical officer with a view to ascertaining that he is sufficiently in possession of his reason to make a lucid statement. (2) The person making the declaration shall, if possible, be examined by a medical officer with a view to ascertaining that he is sufficiently in possession of his reason to make a lucid statement. (3) If no Magistrate can be obtained, the declaration shall, when a gazetted officer is not present, be recorded in the presence of two or more reliable witnesses unconnected with the police department and with the parties concerned in the case. We find that compliance of Rule 6.22 has been made in letter and spirit in the instant case. 8. Smt. Kaneej (Pw4) in her deposition stated that Lal Khan and his wife Akhtari Begum who were tenant in her house used to quarrel. On the day of incident Rajida and Raseeda were present at the place of occurrence and when Lal Khan came to the house the quarrel took place and incident occurred. 9. Dr. O.P. Saini (Pw.6) who examined the deceased after the incident deposed that he had certified the fitness of Akhtari Begum to give the statement before the Magistrate. Dr. P.C. Vyas (Pw.6) who conducted autopsy on the dead body on January 1, 1996 deposed that the deceased died because of burns of second and third degree. The cause of death was septicaemia caused due to burn injuries. 10. Having carefully scanned the dying declaration and the ocular evidence adduced at the trial, we find that the dying declaration made by Akhtari Begum was not the result of tutoring, promptly or imagination. It does not suffer from infirmity and it can form the basis of conviction. 11. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellants Raseeda @ Raasida and Rajeeda under section 302/34 IPC are confirmed.Appeal DIsmissed. *******