B. PRAKASH RAO, J :- This appeal is filed at the instance of the sole accused assailing the judgment, dated 28.9.2005 in S.C. No.307 of 2002 on the file of the X Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, Narasaraopet, convicting him for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8.3.1998 at about 10.00 p.m., the accused poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased Nali Guravamma, aged 35 years, who is the wife of late Venkata Subbaiah and who happened to be the mistress of the accused. She died on the next day i.e., 9.3.1998 in the Government Hospital, Narasaraopet. The further case of the prosecution is that the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital by Nali Srinu. PW.12-Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Narasaraopet, after giving first aid to the deceased, sent EX.P7- intimation to the police to make arrangements to take the patient to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, since the facilities are not available. He also sent EX.PI7- intimation to the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet, for recording the dying declaration. 3. P.W.7, who is the Head Constable of Narasaraopet Town Police Station, stated that on receipt of Ex.P7-intimation, he reached the hospital and found P.W.!3 I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at 11.40 p.m., and later, he gave requisition to the said Magistrate to submit the copy of dying declaration, which is marked as EX.P9. On the strength of Ex.P9, he registered a case in Crime No.284 of 1998 under Section 307 IPC of Narasaraopet Police Station and issued express FIR to all the concerned. P.W.7 after visiting the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P1-observation report and seized M.O.1-Match box, M.O.2-white plastic tin with five litre kerosene without cap, and then he drafted Ex.P12-rough sketch of the scene of offence and came to the hospital. 4. P.W.II-S.1. of Police, Narasaraopet stated that on 9.3.1998 at about 2.30 p.m., on receipt of death intimation, he altered Section of Law from 307 to 302 IPC and sent Ex.P 16-altered FIR to all the concerned, and further investigation was taken up by Sri M Veeraiah, C.1 of Police, who died in the year 2002. 4. P.W.II-S.1. of Police, Narasaraopet stated that on 9.3.1998 at about 2.30 p.m., on receipt of death intimation, he altered Section of Law from 307 to 302 IPC and sent Ex.P 16-altered FIR to all the concerned, and further investigation was taken up by Sri M Veeraiah, C.1 of Police, who died in the year 2002. He further stated that he was present at the time of inquest held by the Inspector of Police along with P.Ws.9 and 10 and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P 14. 5. One of the relatives of the deceased was examined as P.W.5 along with the neighbours, P.Ws.l to 3. However, all the witnesses P.W.s. 1 to 6 turned hostile. P.W.8, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Narasaraopet, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 10.3.1998 at 1.00 p.m., and opined that the whole body of the deceased was burnt i.e., from head to legs and she sustained more than 90% bum injuries, which are fatal and the cause of death was due to shock. Ex.P 13 is the post-mortem report. After investigation, P.W.14-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Urban Police Station, filed charge-sheet on 26.6.1998. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charge framed against him. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.! to 14 were examined and Exs.Pl to 19 and M.Os.! and 2 were marked. On behalf of defence, DWs.l to 3 were examined. 7. As already stated, P. Ws. 1 to 6 turned hostile. P.Ws.1 to 3 are neighbours of the deceased, P.WA is the father and P.W.S is the brother of the deceased. During the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the offence. He stated that due to disputes between the family members of the deceased, she committed suicide and she was residing with Nali Srinu. In support thereof, he examined D.Ws.1 to 3. However, the Court below, on appreciation of entire evidence and material on record, held that the accused found guilty of the charge framed against him and imposed the punishment as specified supra. Hence, the appeal. 8. In support thereof, he examined D.Ws.1 to 3. However, the Court below, on appreciation of entire evidence and material on record, held that the accused found guilty of the charge framed against him and imposed the punishment as specified supra. Hence, the appeal. 8. Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended by taking through the entire evidence that especially, the entire case of the prosecution rests only on the dying declaration recorded by P.W.13, which was certified by P.W.12 Doctor, and since P.W s.1 to 6 turned hostile, their evidence is not at all supportive to the case of the prosecution. He further contended that in view of the version, as spoken to by P.W.8-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, that a patient with the injuries sustained by the deceased, could not speak at all, it is absolutely unsafe to place any reliance on Ex.P 19-dying declaration. The inquest report was also not properly prepared and P.W.9, who is the inquest mediator, stated that his signature was taken at the police station. That apart, as per the medical evidence, the body of the deceased was burnt with more than 90% injuries and so, there is no question to show that the deceased was in conscious state of mind or able to give any such statement under Ex.P19. Therefore, whole finding of guilty of the appellant needs to be set aside. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent, by taking through the evidence on record, contended that the finding of the Court below is correct, irrespective of the fact that P.Ws.1 to 6 turned hostile, and that Ex.P19-dying declaration is neither unassailable nor there can be any doubt with regard to the genuineness thereon and there is no valid ground to reject the same, and the Court below has rightly held that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, there is no need for interference by this Court. 10. On these and other submissions made from both sides and also on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is, whether in the facts and circumstances, the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt and whether Ex.P 19-dying declaration recorded by P.W.13 can be relied on holding the appellant as guilty? 11. 10. On these and other submissions made from both sides and also on perusal of the entire material on record, the only point that arises for consideration is, whether in the facts and circumstances, the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt and whether Ex.P 19-dying declaration recorded by P.W.13 can be relied on holding the appellant as guilty? 11. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances and also the chequered events, it is not necessary to go into the entire record nor the entire version as spoken to on behalf of the prosecution or any other material, since the entire case of the prosecution depends upon Ex.P 19- dying declaration, recorded at about 11.40 p.m., on 8.3.1998 by P.W.l3-Magistrate in the presence of duty Doctor-P.W.12. Admittedly, the incident occurred on 8.3.1998 at about 10.00 p.m., alleging that the appellant/accused poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased. The very fact that the statement of the deceased was recorded hardly within a period of one and half hour itself shows that there is every possibility of influence over the deceased to say otherwise. That apart, as per the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13, nothing has been elicited as to why their version should not be accepted. P.W.7-Head Constable, who firstly visited the hospital, stated that by the time he reached the hospital, the patient was unconscious, however, secondly, he gave requisition to P.W.13-Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the deceased after certification given by P.W.12. As such, P.W.7 definitely says that EX.P 19 declaration was given by the deceased in conscious state of mind. The learned Magistrate has followed the procedure, as contemplated, by putting all the questions as to whether the deceased was coherent and conscious state of mind. As per the statement of the deceased, the accused poured kerosene on her and lit her with matchstick, and she is living with the accused for the last six years. At the end, P.W. 12-Doctor has certified that by the time of recording the statement, the patient was conscious, coherent and she was in a position to answer the questions. 12. At the end, P.W. 12-Doctor has certified that by the time of recording the statement, the patient was conscious, coherent and she was in a position to answer the questions. 12. The another aspect sought to be alleged on behalf of the appellant is that P.W.8, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 9.3.1998 and issued postmortem certificate-Ex.P13 noting several bum injuries received from head to legs, opined that the cause of death was due to shock. The said report is totally silent as to the other conditions or scope of the injuries. P.W.8 stated in his crossexamination that a patient with injuries as sustained by the deceased in this case, could not speak at all. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant gives very much importance to this statement and contended that P.W.13-Magistrate could not have recorded the condition of the patient nor P.W.12 certified the same. It is to be noticed that P.W.8, who is a Civil Assistant Surgeon, working in Government Hospital from 1991 to 2000, stated that the incident occurred on 8.3.1998 and he conducted post-mortem examination on 9.3.1998. He retired from service in December, 2002. He gave this deposition on 23.10.2004 in the Court. P.W.8 could not have recorded any opinion in regard to the position or the condition of the patient (deceased) or any other aspect in regard to her statement, and it is highly unbelievable and cannot be accepted that such Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, can be said to have any knowledge or can give opinion in regard to the condition of the deceased or any patient as such, at the time of dying declaration. That apart, every case of bums with 90% or more could not possibly be in the same position and it depends upon the patient's condition, nature and grievousness of the injuries, which had been received by such patient and effect thereof. In many cases, the patient would be in a position to speak. Even in case of high percentage bums, the patient could live more than 2 or 3 days and could be in a position to speak. All these can only be known by a Doctor, who has seen such patient at that particular point of time instead of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Even in case of high percentage bums, the patient could live more than 2 or 3 days and could be in a position to speak. All these can only be known by a Doctor, who has seen such patient at that particular point of time instead of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Such opinion by a Doctor, who conducted autopsy, cannot be termed as any expert opinion. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept any such opinion given by the Doctor-PW8, who only gave post-mortem certificate, and such opinion cannot fall well within the parameters of the expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Even to say, an expert should be well within the permits but not beyond the scope about which he could have no knowledge or expertise. It is not the case of P.W.8 that he has seen the patient at any time before the death of the deceased, and so, he could not have any knowledge or "pinion as to the condition of the patient. Therefore, we are of the view that it is totally unsafe to place reliance on the opinion given by a postmortem doctor in regard to the condition of the patient. 13. Further, it is to be noticed that especially having regard to the fact that the evidence available from P.W.13Magistrate and P. W .12 another Doctor, who had seen the deceased when she was living, there being no reason at all to reject their version. This Court is not prepared to place any reliance on the version of P.W.8. It is to be noticed that in the inquest report-Ex.P 14, in column VII, it has been specifically noted after observing the dead body of the deceased that there are bums all over the body with bubbles and skin was loosened except on the left hand on both the feet of the deceased and further, Ex.P 19-dying declaration shows that the thumb impression of left hand of the deceased was taken. In view of the same, it cannot be said that though the injuries are 90% or more than that, it may not have extended to the left hand and thereby obtained thumb impression of left hand of the deceased. In view of the same, it cannot be said that though the injuries are 90% or more than that, it may not have extended to the left hand and thereby obtained thumb impression of left hand of the deceased. Another important point is that the inquest report has not been properly prepared at the place where the dead body was found, since P.W.9, who is the panch witness to the inquest report, stated that his signature was taken in the police station. It is to be noticed in the evidence of P.W.9 that he was present at the time of the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and in the presence of himself, Thammisetti Babu and Garlapathi Venkatappaiah inquest report was drafted. In the cross-examination, he stated that on dictation of the police, he scribed Ex.P14 in Narasaraopet Police Station. This itself is not sufficient to reject the version of either P.W.9 or preparation of inquest report. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the said contention. 14. Further, on behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the Magistrate did not follow the procedure as contemplated since the opinion of the Doctor had been recorded after the declaration was• over. P. W.13, the Magistrate, after narrating the entire version, no doubt, has stated that the Doctor has given the certificate subsequently. There is no dispute that P.W.l2 has seen the deceased and found she was coherent and was in conscious state. In support thereof, the learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance under sub-rule (2) of Section 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice, which reads as follows: "Before taking down the declaration, the Magistrate shall disclose his identity and also ask the declarant whether he is mentally capable of making a declaration. He should also put simple questions to elicit answer from the declarant with a view to knowing his state of mind and should record the questions and answers, signs and gestures together with his own conclusion in the matter. He should also obtain whenever possible a certificate from the Medical Officer as to the mental condition of the declarant." The aforesaid Rule specifically points out that the Magistrate should obtain a certificate from the Doctor with regard to the mental condition of the patient whenever possible. He should also obtain whenever possible a certificate from the Medical Officer as to the mental condition of the declarant." The aforesaid Rule specifically points out that the Magistrate should obtain a certificate from the Doctor with regard to the mental condition of the patient whenever possible. This does not mean, the Magistrate should obtain certificate before recording her statement, but what all reasonable is that the certification by the Doctor as to the condition of the patient at the time it was recorded and he should record the same and certify, which could be before or immediately thereafter. There is nothing to show that the said Doctor did not examine the patient before recording the declaration, though he has seen the deceased as such. In the circumstances, we do not find any violation or error, as contemplated under the above said Rule as regards the correctness or validity of the declaration. 15. In View of the aforesaid circumstances, even though the nature of injuries received by the deceased are more than 90%, there could have been possibility of recording the declaration or obtaining thumb impression. However, it is to be noticed that much attempt has been made on behalf of the appellant in the crossexamination of all other witnesses including the Doctors P.Ws.12 and 8. However, there is no specific suggestion to see that the left hand of the deceased was not in such condition of obtaining thumb impression. Having regard to the note in the inquest report, it is clear that the left hand of the deceased was not affected by any such bums, though other major parts of the body burnt. Even though an attempt was made on behalf of the appellant by taking the specific plea in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C and by examining D.Ws.1 to 3 on his behalf, to the effect that the deceased committed suicide, we have accepted the prosecution version and we do not find any justifiable grounds to accept the said version. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the said submission. 16. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept the said submission. 16. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and also any error in the conclusion arrived at by the Court below and that EX.P19 cannot be accepted to hold that the appellant is not guilty and nothing has been made out to show that the prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove this case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.